Employed or Unemployed: Who Would You Hire?
Columbia Business School Professor Rita McGrath takes a look at this issue in this blog post. Her analysis of a story in The Wall Street Journal about hiring tendencies today: "Apparently, many believe that those that are unemployed were their former employers' lower-priorities, poor performers or otherwise non-superstars. By hiring someone who already has a job, they reason, they are reducing their risk of picking up someone who is a second-class performer." There's definitely some logic there. But then again, there are plenty of talented IT pros out there that found themselves jobless simply because their companies had to cut back due to the recession. Quite a challenge for CIOs. IT pros, what's the reality for you? Have you opted for one or the other? And what kinds of results have you seen? See also: 9 IT Staffing Projections for Q3 |
Comments (10)
Never overlook the unemployed! First, figure out the reason(s) for unemployment. The current economic climate generates many situations where people may be temporarily without a job, some even by choice. If other recruiters focus on those with a job first, that means you'll have first dibs on unemployed candidates.
Posted by Mark B | July 15, 2009 8:56 AM
Of course employers will prefer to hire the currently employed over the unemployed.
Employers will also prefer "attractive" people (e.g tall, thin, good facial features, healthy appearance and age cohort matching the managers).
No amount of wishful thinking by job-seekers will ever change this.
What does change this is simply the employer experience of never being able to find "good candidates" and tacitly reducing their biases.
Posted by Tom K | July 15, 2009 10:53 AM
"Job Performance" is not an intrinsic property of an employee. It is the result of a complex interaction of business needs and employee talents and skills.
Employers frequently discover that the "superstars" in one organization become merely average performers - or worse - when they are hired into another organization.
It is also commonplace for employers to hire a competent-looking candidate who turns out to be that "superstar" they like to brag about.
In both cases, nothing is really different with the employee. It is the matching of person with environment that makes the difference in outcome.
Heros are made - not born.
Posted by Tom K | July 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Experience, references, cultural fit, temperament—regardless of age. The person who can hit the ground running and maintain calm in a challenging and fast-paced environment. Currently employed or not, give them the opportunity to shine. My last hire was 20 years older than me but had the experience the younger folks didn't have. Fit and competence over age and beauty.
Posted by Jennifer | July 16, 2009 5:52 AM
What utter nonsense.
Half the IT workforce is contract, and of that maybe 30 percent is out of work at any given moment, especially in this economy.
Do you know who is most employed? Those who will take the lowest salaries. And do you know why they will take the lowest salaries?
My question, why is there such a screaming lack of even the most basic managerial talent these days in IT?
Posted by Josh | August 6, 2009 1:08 PM
You hire the best. Period. The best will pay for themselves. It doesn't matter if they are currently employed or not.
You can outsource the tasks that require only commodity skills, the tasks that can be performed by a scalable workforce; the people who, if given simple instructions, can perform the grunt work.
But where you need expertise, you hire the best, pay them well, and position them as subject matter experts who understand your business in a layer of detail that most don't need to grasp.
Posted by John | August 7, 2009 5:42 PM
I know many an innovator who is unemployed because laggard management doesn't consider him part of the "team."
The question for the innovator is always, am I worried more about keeping my job, or doing it? For the laggard, keeping his job is paramount.
Hire the unemployed innovator who has kept up with his education and certifications.
Posted by Ronde | August 30, 2009 4:46 PM
I totally agree with the last comment. An unemployed individual is more capable of doing a good job because of he/she is eager to work. So, never under estimate the unemployed.
Posted by William Right | November 5, 2009 10:37 AM
I agree with the poster above, as somebody who was overlooked in the job market for five years. During that time I learned a technology that is now massively in demand, but it took a brave start-up company to give me the benefit of the doubt in the first place. Don't look simply at the work record--look at their online portfolio.
Posted by Peter | November 17, 2009 12:01 PM
There are many reasons a person can become unemployed or underemployed and looking for full- or part-time work. One good example of this is part-time technical or college-level instructors. We teach the latest technology to your employees and with the recession and the cutbacks in schools, part-timers are the first to go. Due to this many of us are out of work or underemployed.
Yet, when a teacher applies for a full- or part-time job we are basically told that we can't do the work because we are teachers (who you send your employee to for training) and "teachers teach but can't do." Some of your best potential full- or part-time employees who know the technology, have experience troubleshooting it, and can think fast on their feet, may be available.
Posted by Bruce Derflinger | December 28, 2009 3:26 PM